Summary
applying "possibility of bias" standard where agency functions are adequately separated would overlook purpose of judicial and quasijudicial proceedings as well as ability of honest men to perform duty required of them as normal human beings endowed with intellect and reason
Summary of this case from Oppenheim v. St. Dental C. and Ex. Bd.Opinion
March 13, 1962.
April 24, 1962.
Municipalities — Boroughs — Civil Service Commission — Powers — Removal of policeman — Statutory hearing — Unbiased hearing — Rehearing before same commissioners.
1. In this appeal in which it appeared that a policeman had been removed by a borough civil service commission for adultery and on his appeal to the Supreme Court the case was sent back to the civil service commission for "a new, unbiased hearing, at which the procedural and substantive statutory rights of the policeman will be protected"; and two of the commissioners who presided at the original hearing again sat during the second hearing and the policeman was again removed from his position upon a finding that he was guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer; and he claimed that he was denied an unbiased hearing by reason of the fact that the two commissioners who had heard the evidence at the first hearing and formed an opinion on it again passed upon the same evidence at the second hearing, but there was no evidence of any fraud or improper conduct of the commissioners, it was Held that such contention was without merit. [287-8]
Appeals — Review — Scope — Broad certiorari — Dismissal of policeman.
2. On an appeal from an order of the court of common pleas sustaining a civil service commission order dismissing a policeman, the scope of appellate review is in the nature of broad certiorari; and the Supreme Court considers the entire record, including all of the testimony. [288]
Before BELL, C. J., MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN and O'BRIEN, JJ.
Appeal, No. 36, March T., 1961, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, July T., 1958, No. 307, in case of Borough of Vandergrift and The Civil Service Commission v. Joseph Polito. Order affirmed.
Proceedings on appeal from decision of civil service commission. Before O'Connell, P.J.
Order entered dismissing appeal and affirming commission's order. Employe appealed.
Frank J. Zappala, Jr., with him Zappala Zappala, for appellant.
Louis C. Glasso, with him Joseph Ceraso, for appellee.
The appellant, a policeman, was removed from his position by the Civil Service Commission of the Borough of Vandergrift, which found him guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer. This was sustained by the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County.
Appellant contends he did not receive from the Civil Service Commission "a new, unbiased hearing, at which the procedural and substantive statutory rights of the policeman will be protected" as we ordered in his previous appeal. Vandergrift v. Polito, 397 Pa. 538, 156 A.2d 99 (1959).
His contention is that since two of the commissioners who presided at the original commission hearing and rendered an opinion on the evidence before it were called upon to once again review the same evidence, and could not honestly discharge their duty, he was denied an unbiased hearing.
He does not charge the commissioners with improper conduct but rather the defect of human nature inherent in mankind which precludes the commissioners from divesting their minds of the improper evidence received at the first hearing.
This reasoning overlooks the purpose of judicial and quasi judicial proceedings as well as the ability of honest men to perform the duty required of them as normal human beings endowed with intellect and reason. It also attacks the various governmental processes established for the safeguard of the rights of persons. This position is wholly untenable as being contrary to human experience. This is not a case where fraud or improper conduct of the commissioners is charged. No such accusation has been made and no evidence whatsoever appears in the record. The certiorari in the instant case is broad and upon review of such on appeal the Court considers the entire record, including all of the testimony. Philadelphia Saving Fund Society v. Myers, 406 Pa. 438, 179 A.2d 209 (1962); Dauphin Deposit Trust Co. v. Myers, 401 Pa. 230, 164 A.2d 86 (1960).
The court below heard the case de novo and our examination of the record discloses no fault and no violation of appellant's procedural and substantive statutory rights.
Order affirmed.